A school board in California has attractedheadlines over the past few days for voting unanimously that a new environmental science class starting this autumn must include "multiple perspectives" on the science of global warming.

Four board members of the Los Alamitos Unified School District voted to list the class - which was taught to 15,000 public school students across California in 2008-09 (pdf of class description) - as a "controversial topic", meaning the teacher must explain to the board annually how opposing views are to be taught.

Echoing similar efforts at school boards in other US states, the move has been criticised by some commentators. One parent of a pupil at Los Alamitos Unified School told the Orange County Register: "There is consensus in the field that we have global warming happening, it is getting warmer and it is related to what we are doing to the planet. That is not in dispute in the scientific community. It is in dispute in the political community. This is a science class. Teach science."

The drive to "teach the controversy" on global warming in the school district has been led by Dr Jeffrey Barke, a medical doctor based at Newport Beach and school board member. Last Friday, I asked him to better explain the board's position. Here is a transcript of our conversation:

What's been the feedback since this news was first reported?

The feedback has been primarily from left-wing blogs and zealots who believe that to suggest there is a point of view to be discussed that is different to the dogma of global warming is, in and of itself, controversial. Our perspective simply was we had asked the teachers to present a balanced perspective to the children as it relates to a new course that we brought forward called Advanced Placement in Environmental Science. And this class is one that is most commonly offered at the universities, but some high schools offer it as well.So, after reviewing the syllabus, we found a lot of information about global warming and man-caused effects on the environment etc. Our worry was the kids would be presented simply with one perspective and we wanted to make sure they had a balanced view so we simply updated a policy we already have on the books regarding controversial issues. It simply asks that when a class is taught containing potentially controversial issues that we ask the teacher not to get the kids to believe in a particular perspective or point of view, but simply that the teachers present both sides of the equation in a fair-and-balanced manner.

"Fair and balanced" is arguably the key term here. Can you pin down what you feel is controversial about the teaching of manmade global warming? Is it the science you find controversial, or the proposed solutions being put forward by various politicians or groups?

That's a very good question. The course hasn't yet been taught so I can't tell you what has been told to the children that is controversial. But, to answer your question, I would argue that both of those are controversial. Controversial meaning, in my opinion, there are legitimate, mainstream, normative opinions that differ from the liberal dogma of belief in global warming.I think there are three tenets of global warming that must be true before it becomes a significant issue that government must move forward to address. And those are:1) That global warming is actually happening.2) That if it's happening, it is primarily the result of human activity.3) If it's happening, and it's primarily the result of human activity, that the results will be catastrophic.So you need to have all of those before the government moves forward with passing regulations and providing leadership to the world.

I can see number three being controversial, perhaps, but one and two are scientifically uncontroversial…

I appreciate your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. My belief is there are plenty of mainstream scientists who would disagree with all three of those points.

You could probably count on one hand the serious, respected scientists who hold an alternative view on this. Surely, the vast majority of scientists would agree with points one and two…

With all respect, I don't agree with that. I think that is what is presented by the media, most of whom are left of centre. I think there are almost an equal number of reputable scientists who would disagree with many of the tenets that say global warming is unarguably happening, whether it's caused by man, and whether it will have devastating consequences. Ian Plimer from Australia through to Bjorn Lomborg primarily argue against the third point. There's hundreds of them. The IPCC is held up to be the global consensus but, in my opinion, it is a political rather than scientific body. But I'm not here to argue about the merits of global warming. Our desire was to have the kids get a balanced perspective.

So how would you propose for that to be taught in a fair-and-balanced way? In a classroom, would you have a 50/50 lesson with one set of views then the other?

That's a good question. From a practical standpoint, I don't know. It's an evolving issue. The way our controversial subject policy has always worked – and it predates me – is that we ask the teacher to come to the board and give us some information about how they are going to present each view. I don't know what the answer is yet. Whether it's 50/50, or what have you. And I am only one of five board members.

Are you alone on the board as someone holding these views about global warming?

I don't claim to represent the views of other board members. The way it happened is that we had two votes. One to introduce this new AP class, which we voted to allow this to move forward. And we also voted to ask our school administration to introduce a policy to make sure this class is taught in a fair-and-balanced way. So the instructors or principal will bring to the board an outline of how this class is going to be taught in a fair-and-balanced manner.How do we define 'balance'? We haven't, so it's an evolving issue. We're all imperfect folk just trying to do the best we can to look out for the kids. I haven't given it a lot of thought, to be honest, but I would like the kids to be presented with both perspectives on all three of those tenets. My opinion is that they should hear both sides and not be taught that global warming is uncontroversial and that the jury is in.

What are the other subjects that have been treated as 'controversial' by the school board? Evolution?

No, that's more of a religious issue. It certainly could be controversial, but it hasn't come to the attention of the board that there's an issue in a particular class of how they teach evolution versus creationism. Things that have been controversial are things like sex education. What age do you present particular material to kids about STDs, pregnancy prevention etc. Sometimes there will be a group of parents who think none of that should be presented in the school, whereas others who think it should be presented very early on.

How does that get resolved?

By putting together a large panel of community leaders and letting them determine the best way to bring forth sex education. One of the principles of public education in the US – at least, in theory - is local control over a school. So what we try to do in our small district is allow the community to be involved in helping us guide the scope and depth of various issues taught to our kids. There are, of course, various standards that are brought forward both federally and at a state level. For example, the basics of mathematics, literature etc, where there are no issues. But around the fringes there is certainly room for local input.

So, would a community panel be established for the global-warming teaching issue?

Well, to the extent that there was controversy in our community – and there's not - the controversy is coming from outside our community. I'm getting hundreds of emails [about this]. The fact that I would suggest that there is a perspective to be taught to kids different from the normative, dogma of global warming is what is outraging many on the left.

It's interesting that you describe this subject with terms such as 'the left' and 'dogma'. How would you characterise your own political outlook?

I'm probably more libertarian. Some would say I'm conservative. But basically, at heart, I'm a libertarian.

The libertarian, conservative outlook in the US does seem to ally itself very closely to climate scepticism, doesn't it?

It does, yes. There are always exceptions, but as a generalisation those on the left are more believers of the standard dogma of global warming. Those on the right kind of yawn about it and wonder what all the passion is about. But in general, certainly with the third tenet, they think spending bowl loads of resources to combat a so-called global warming bogeyman is way overblown.

It's often observed that it's someone's ideological outlook – be it left or right – that drives their opinions on the science of global warming. Surely, it is an unhealthy situation? Science should just be taken at its scientific face-value and you shouldn't let ideology – left or right - warp your view?

I would absolutely agree. I'm not motivated to question global warming because I'm a libertarian or conservative. I question it simply because I've read opinions. I've read science. It's just my personal belief. I'm a medical doctor. I'm not an environmental scientist, but I'm smart enough to read articles and decipher opinions from fact. I don't believe the science is as settled as many do.

You mentioned Plimer and Lomborg, who are both very controversial figures who have been widely challenged and - certainly in Plimer's case - have been debunked by some people. Who else have you read?

The reality is that anybody who challenges global warming comes under a firestorm of criticism and demagoguery from those who are true zealots. So it's almost impossible for a scientist to come out with facts and evidence against global warming without being personally attacked and demagogued. Plimer and Lomborg are just two examples of very prominent, reputable scientists who are unfortunately just getting hammered by the media and quite personally at times. I'm not good at remembering names and details, but those two stand out because they are in the media and I've read some of their work. I read through the literature all the time – both from those on the right and the left – and, to me at least, it's fairly clear that the science is not settled. And the fact that I'm being attacked personally for my beliefs is really kind of sad.

What's the next step with this class?

Sometime in the fall, the teacher – I'm not even sure who it is yet – will present to the board and show how he is going to present it in a balanced manner.

How many children are covered by your board?

The high school has approximately 3,000 kids and I understand that this new environmental science class is one of the most popular classes. There will probably be four or five classes taught. Each class will have about 30 kids. And the age range will be about 15-19 years old. It's not compulsory, it's an elective.

Since we spoke, the teacher of the class at Los Alamitos High has been asked for his comment. Gordon MacDuff told the Orange County Register that he has no problems with presenting information in "an unbiased fashion and let[ting] the students make up their own minds":

I want to present just the science behind the issues and go from there. I won't spin it in one way or another. I will just present it and let the students use their brains. It's environmental science, not environmental studies.